The bearing capacity of shallow foundations on slopes

S. Van Baars
University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

ABSTRACT: In 1920 Prandtl published an analytical solution for the bearing capacity of a soil under a strip
load. Over the years, extensions have been made for a surrounding surcharge, the soil weight, the shape of the
footing, the inclination of the load, and also for a slope. In order to check the current extensions of a loaded
strip footing next to a slope, many finite element calculations have been made, showing that these extensions
are often inaccurate. Therefore new factors have been proposed, which are for both the soil-weight and the
surcharge slope bearing capacity, based on the numerical calculations, and for the cohesion slope bearing ca-
pacity, also on an analytical solution.

1 INTRODUCTION 2. Zone 2: A wedge with the shape of a logarith-

In 1920, Ludwig Prandtl published an analytical so-
lution for the bearing capacity of a soil under a strip
load, p, causing kinematic failure of the weightless
infinite half-space underneath. The strength of the
half-space is given by the angle of internal friction,
, and the cohesion, c. The original drawing of the
failure mechanism proposed by Prandtl can be seen
in Figure 1.
mic spiral, in which the principal stresses rotate
through ½ radians, or 90 degrees, from Zone 1
to Zone 3. The pitch of the sliding surface of the
logarithmic spiral equals the angle of internal
friction; , creating a smooth transition between
Zone 1 and Zone 3.
3. Zone 3: A triangular zone adjacent to the strip
load. Since there is no friction on the surface of
the ground, the directions of principal stress are
horizontal and vertical; the largest principal
stress is in the horizontal direction.

The solution of Prandtl was extended by Hans J.

Figure 1. The Prandtl-wedge failure mechanism (Original
drawing by Prandtl).
The lines in the sliding soil part on the left indicate
the directions of the maximum and minimum princi-
pal stresses, while the lines in the sliding soil part on
the right, indicate the sliding lines with a direction of
 = 45 - ½ in comparison to the maximum princi-
pal stress. Prandtl subdivided the sliding soil part in-
to three zones:
1. Zone 1: A triangular zone below the strip load.
Since there is no friction on the ground surface,
the directions of the principal stresses are hori-
zontal and vertical; the largest principal stress is
in the vertical direction.
Reissner (1924) with a surrounding surcharge, q, and
was based on the same failure mechanism. Albert S.
Keverling Buisman (1940) and Karl Terzaghi (1943)
extended the Prandtl-Reissner formula for the soil
weight,  . It was Terzaghi who first wrote the bear-
ing capacity with three separate bearing capacity
factors for the cohesion, surcharge and soil weight.
George G. Meyerhof (1953) was the first to propose
equations for inclined loads, based on his own labor-
atory experiments. Meyerhof was also the first in
1963 to write the formula for the (vertical) bearing
capacity pv with bearing capacity factors (N), incli-
nation factors (i) and shape factors (s), for the three
independent bearing components; cohesion (c), sur-
charge (q) and soil weight (), in a way it was adopt-
ed by Jørgen A. Brinch Hansen (1970) and it is still
used nowadays:
pv  ic sc cNc  iq sq qNq  i s 12  BN . (1)

Prandtl (1920) solved the cohesion bearing capacity
factor:
1  sin 
Nc   K p  e tan   1 cot  with: K p 
1  sin 
Reissner (1924) solved the surcharge bearing capaci-
ty factor with the equilibrium of moments of Zone 2:
2
r  1
 tan 
N q  K p   3   K p  e tan  with: r3  r1  e 2
 r1 
Keverling Buisman (1940), Terzaghi (1943), Caquot
and Kérisel (1953, 1966), Meyerhof (1951; 1953;
1963; 1965), Brinch Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973,
1975), and Chen (1975) subsequently proposed dif-
ferent equations for the soil-weight bearing capacity
factor N. Therefore the following equations for the
soil-weight bearing capacity factor can be found in
the literature:
N   K p  e tan   1 tan 1.4  (Meyerhof),
N  1.5  K p  e tan   1 tan  (Brinch Hansen),
N  2  K p  e tan   1 tan  (Vesic),
N  2  K p  e tan   1 tan  (Chen).
Coulomb (c, ) soil model without hardening, sof-
tening, or volume change during failure (so the dila-
tancy angle  = 0).
(2)
2 MEYERHOF & VESIC
Shallow foundations also exist in or near slopes, for
example the foundation of a house or a bridge (Fig-
ure 2). Meyerhof was in 1957 the first to publish
(3) about the bearing capacity of foundations on a slope.
He wrote: “Foundations are sometimes built on
sloping sites or near the top edge of a slope…. When
a foundation located on the face of a slope is loaded
to failure, the zones of plastic flow in the soil on the
side of the slope are smaller than those of a similar
foundation on level ground and the ultimate bearing
capacity is correspondingly reduced”.
(4)

The problem with all these solutions is that they are

all based on associated soil ( = ). Loukidis et al
(2008) noticed that non-dilatant (non-associated) soil
is 15% - 30% weaker than associated soil, and has a
rougher failure pattern. Van Baars (2015, 2016a,
2016b) confirmed these results with his numerical
calculations and showed that, for non-dilatant soil,
the following lower factors describe better the bear-
ing capacity:
Nq  cos2   K p  e tan  (5)

Nc   N q  1 cot  with: Nq  cos2   K p  e tan  (6)

N  4 tan    e tan   1 (7)

The difference between the analytical solution and

the numerical results has been explained by Knudsen
and Mortensen (2016): The higher the friction angle,
the wider the logarithmic spiral of the Prandtl wedge
and the more the stresses reduce in this wedge dur-
ing failure. So, the analytical formulas are only kin-
ematically admissible for an associated flow behav- Figure 2. Footing of a house and bridge near a slope.
iour ( = ), which is completely unrealistic for
natural soils. This means for higher friction angles as Meyerhof published a failure mechanism of a foot-
well that, a calculation of the bearing capacity of a ing in a slope (Figure 3 above) and introduced fig-
footing based on the analytical solutions (Equations ures with reduced bearing capacity factors (Figure 3
2-3), is also unrealistic. below). The problems with these figures are:
Therefore, in this study, the bearing capacity fac- • it is unclear if the figures are based on non-
tors and the slope factors will be calculated with the associated flow behaviour, or not,
software Plaxis 2D for a bi-linear constitutive Mohr-
 • the figures are not explained and cannot be veri-
fied,
• the figures are only for purely cohesive or pure-
ly frictional soil,
• the important angle  (see line EA in the figure
on the left) is never solved,
• the slope bearing capacity does not go to “0” for
 = , and
• the reduced bearing capacity factors of Meyer-
hof are too high according to the results of Fi-
nite Element Model (FEM load controlled) cal-
culations, made in this article (see the added
points in Figure 3 below).
Figure 3. Above: failure mechanism of a footing in a slope.
Below: reduced bearing capacity factors (according to Meyer-
hof, 1957).
Brinch Hansen (1970) also worked on the influence
of a slope. Vesic (1975) combined the work of Mey-
erhof and Brinch Hansen and proposed the following
bearing capacity equation:
p  c cNc  q qNq   12  BN , (8)
with the following slope factors:
N q q  1
c    0  ,
Nq 1
2
c  1    0  , (9)
 2
q    1  tan   .
2
The angles in these equations are in radians.
It is remarkable, if not to say impossible, that these
slope factors do not depend on the friction angle ,
and that the surcharge slope factor q and the soil-
weight slope factor  are identical.
Another mistake is that the cohesion slope factor
Nc is solved based on the assumption that Equation 6
about the relation between the cohesion bearing ca-
pacity Nc and the surcharge bearing capacity Nq, is
also valid for inclined loading, and also for loading
near a slope (cNc = (qNq - 1)cot). This assumption
was published first by De Beer and Ladanyi (1961).
Vesic (1975) calls this “the theorem of correspond-
ence”, and Bolton (1975) calls this “the usual trick”.
The relation between Nc and Nq in Equation 6 is co-
incidently valid for vertical ultimate loads without a
slope (Nc = (Nq - 1)cot), but the assumption that this
is also the case for inclined loading and loading near
a slope, is not correct, according to the results of the
numerical calculations, and also according to the an-
alytical solution given later in this paper.
This indicates that not only the inclination factors,
but also the slope factors proposed by Vesic, are in-
correct and should not be used.
3 MODERN RESEARCH & GERMAN NORMS
Over the years quite some people have published
about the bearing capacity of footings on a slope, but
that was mostly limited to, or purely cohesive slopes
(Azzouz and Baligh, 1983; Graham et al., 1988,
Georgiadis, 2010, Shiau et al (2011) or purely non-
cohesive slopes (Grahams et al., 1988), in a ge-
otechnical centrifuge (Shields et al. 1990), or dedi-
cated to even more complex cases like seismicity
(Kumar and Rao, 2003; Yamamoto, 2010), rein-
forced soil (Alamshahi and Hataf, 2009; Choudhary
et al., 2010) or 3D load cases near slopes
(Michalowski, 1989; De Butan and Garnier, 1998),
while the more simple non-seismic, non-reinforced,
2D situation is still not fully understood.
Chakraborty and Kumar (2013) were one of the first
to make a more general study, but unfortunately only
used, as most researchers, the lower bound finite el-
ement limit analysis with a non-linear optimization.
They also did not present slope correction factors.
The same applies to Leshchinsky (2015), who used
an upper-bound limit state plasticity failure discreti-
sation scheme.
The currently most used slope correction factors,
are the following slope correction factors mentioned
in the German design norm (in fact the German An-
nex to Eurocode 7 “Geotechnical Engineering”):
N q e   1
c    0  ,
Nq 1
c  1  0.4 tan    0  , (10) (10)
q  1  tan   ,
1.9

  1  0.5 tan   ,
6

in which:   0.0349    tan .

The angles in these equations are in degrees and to

avoid slope failure:  ≤ .

There is no reference or any background information

in the German design norm about these factors,
which is a major problem. It is also remarkable, for
these slope correction factors in the German norm, if
not to say impossible, that the surcharge slope factor
and also the soil-weight slope factor do not depend
on the friction angle.
Because of these problems, the bearing capacity
near slopes has been studied with the well-
established and validated Finite Element Model
Plaxis. First load controlled calculations have been
made, and second, comparisons have been made be-
tween these Finite Element calculations and the re-
sults of the German design norm, the results of
Bishop slip circle calculations (with the program
“GEO5” from “Fine Civil Engineering Software”)
and, for the cohesion slope factor c, also the results
of the analytical solution proposed in this article.

4 SLOPE FACTORS
4.1 Cohesion slope factor c
For two different friction angles  = 0, 30 and four
different slope angles  = 0, 10, 20, 30, the fail-
ure mechanism for a cohesive (c = 10 kPa), weight-
less (’= 0 kN/m3) soil has been calculated with
numerical calculations (FEM) and compared with
the Prandtl failure mechanism, see Figure 4.
Figure 4. Failure mechanism: Prandtl-wedge versus FEM
(Incremental displacement plots).
This figure shows that a Prandtl-wedge with a re-
duced Zone 2 (the logarithmic spiral wedge) de-
scribes in general the failure mechanism.
Because of this, it is also possible to derive an an-
alytical solution for the cohesion slope factor, in the
same way as the derivation of the cohesion inclina-
tion factor ic (see Van Baars, 2014):
 2 
c  cos    e2  tan    e tan    
 2 
The results of this analytical solution, the German
design norm and the Bishop’s slip circle method
have been plotted in Figure 5, together with the re-
sults from the Finite Element calculations. Figure 5
shows that the Bishop calculations are only correct
for a zero friction angle. The analytical solution
functions very well. The German norm would func-
tion just as good, if not the Prandtl solution for large
dilatancy (Equation 2), but the solution for zero dila-
tancy (Equation 6), would have be used. The reason
for this is because:
N q e0.0349 tan   1  2
 cos    e2  tan  
Nq 1  2 
Figure 5. Cohesion slope factor
(Analytical solution, German norm and Bishop versus FEM).
4.2 Soil-weight slope factor 
A mistake which can be found in the publication of
Meyerhof (1957), but also in many recent publica-
tions, is the assumption that the failure mechanism
in a purely frictional soil (N), is a Prandtl-wedge
with a reduced logarithmic spiral-wedge, which is
according to the numerical calculations not the case.
Also plots of the incremental displacements of the
FEM calculations, indicating this failure mechanism,
show that this approach is not correct for purely fric-
tional soil (Figure 6).
(11)

 e tan  

(12)
Figure 6. Failure mechanism: Prandtl-wedge versus FEM
(Incremental displacement plots).
Because of this, it is not possible to derive the soil-
weight slope factor , in a similar way as was done
for the cohesion slope factor c. Although, a simple
approximation can easily be made, for example:
2
  3
  1      (13)
 
The results of this equation, the German design
norm and the Bishop’s slip circle method have been
plotted in Figure 7, together with the results from the
Finite Element calculations. This figure shows that
the analytical approximation functions reasonably
well. The German design norm does not fit. The
Bishop calculations do not fit at all. An important
reason for this is the fact that the slip circle in the
Bishop calculations has been forced not to cross the
foundation plate, while the FEM calculations show
that the soil slides somewhere below the plate (see
especially Figure 6 for  = 20), which causes the
plate to tumble over. This tumbling failure mecha-
nism however, is not part of the Bishop calculation
method.
Figure 7. Soil-weight slope factor
(Approximation, German norm and Bishop versus FEM).
4.3 Surcharge slope factor q
In order to see the influence of having a shallow sol-
id footing, additional finite element calculations
have been made for a relative depth of D/B = 1. This
relative depth creates an additional bearing capacity
mostly due to the surcharge of q = ’D , but also due
to a larger slip surface, of which the influence is dif-
ficult to quantify.
Plots of the incremental displacements of the
FEM calculations, indicating the failure mechanism,
show that the failure mechanism of a shallow foun-
dation in a frictional soil with self-weight, is an ex-
tended Prandtl-wedge with a reduced logarithmic
spiral-wedge, see Figure 8.
Since Figure 8 shows that in general the failure
mechanism looks like an extended Prandtl-wedge
with a reduced logarithmic spiral-wedge, it seems
possible to derive an analytical solution for the sur-
charge slope factor, which is purely based on the re-
duced logarithmic spiral-wedge. This would give the
following surcharge slope factor:
q  e2  tan     , (14)
which is the same equation for the surcharge slope
factor as the one proposed by Ip (2005). The prob-
lems with this solution are:
• it neglects the extension (dashed lines) due to
the depth, and
• the surcharge slope factor is not “0” for  = ,
which is the same problem as for the slope fac-
tors of Meyerhof in Figure 3.
Figure 8. Failure mechanism: Prandtl-wedge versus FEM
(Incremental displacement plots).
It is therefore better to make, in this case, a simple
approximation for the surcharge slope factor q, for
example:
3
  2
q  1      . (15)
 
The results of this equation, the German design
norm and the Bishop’s slip circle method have been
plotted in Figure 9, together with the results from the
Finite Element calculations.
This figure shows that the Bishop calculations fit
better for steeper slopes this time, but still not for
gentile slopes. The German design norm and espe-
cially the analytical approximation are functioning
reasonably well.

Figure 9. Surcharge slope factor
(Approximation, German norm and Bishop versus FEM).
5 CONCLUSIONS
A large number of finite element calculations of
strip footings next to a slope have been made in or-
der to check the failure mechanisms, and to check
the bearing capacities, first for the currently used
equations for the slope bearing capacity factors, pro-
posed by the German Annex of the Geotechnical Eu-
rocode, and second for the bearing capacity calculat-
ed with the Bishop slip circle stability calculation
method. These calculations proof that both the Ger-
man slope factors and the Bishop calculations are of-
ten inaccurate.
Therefore new factors have been proposed, which
are for both the soil-weight and the surcharge slope
bearing capacity, based on the numerical calcula-
tions, and for the cohesion slope bearing capacity,
also on an analytical solution.
6 REFERENCES
Alamshahi, S. and Hataf, N. (2009) Bearing capacity of strip
footings on sand slopes reinforced with geogrid and grid-
anchor, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Volume 27, Is-
sue 3, June 2009, pp. 217-226
Azzouz, A. S. and Baligh, M. M. (1983) Loaded areas on co-
hesive slopes, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol.
109, pp. 724-729
Bolton, M. D. (1979) Guide to Soil Mechanics, Macmillian
Press, London, p. 330
Brinch Hansen, J. A. (1970) Revised and extended formula for
bearing capacity, Bulletin No 28, Danish Geotechnical In-
stitute Copenhagen, pp. 5-11.
Caquot, A., and Kerisel, J. (1953) Sur le terme de surface dans
le calcul des fondations en milieu pulverulent. Proc. Third
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tion Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 16–27 August
1953, Vol. 1, pp. 336–337.
Caquot, A., and Kerisel, J. (1966) Traité de Méchanique des
sols, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, pp. 349, 353
Chen, W.F. (1975) Limit analysis and soil plasticity, Elsevier.
Chakraborty, D. And Kumar, J (2013) Bearing capacity of
foundations on slopes. Geomechanics and Geoengineer-
ing, An International Journal, 8(4), pp 274-285.
Choudhary, A.K., Jha, J.N., Gill, K.S. (2010) Laboratory inves-
tigation of bearing capacity behaviour of strip footing on
reinforced flyash slope, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
Volume 28, Issue 4, August 2010, pp. 393-402
De Beer, E. E. and Ladany, B. (1961) Etude expérimentale de
la capacité portante du sable sous des fondations circu-
laire établies en surface, Proceedings 5th Intern. Conf.
Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Paris, Vol 1, pp. 577-581
De Buhan, P. and Garnier, D. (1998), Three Dimensional Bear-
ing Capacity Analysis of a Foundation near a Slope, Soils
and Foundations, 38(3), pp. 153-163.
Georgiadis, K. (2010), Undrained Bearing Capacity of Strip
Footings on Slopes, J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmen-
tal Engineering, 136(5), pp. 677-685.
Graham, J., Andrews, M. and Shields, D.H. (1988), Stress
Characteristics for Shallow Footings in Cohesionless
Slope, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25(2), pp. 238-
249.
Ip, K. W. (2005) Bearing capacity for foundation near slope,
Master-thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada. pp. 61-64.
Keverling Buisman, A. S. (1940). Grondmechanica, Waltman,
Delft, the Netherlands, p. 243
Knudsen, B. S. and Mortensen, N. (2016) Bearing capacity
comparison of results from FEM and DS/EN 1997-1 DK
NA 2013, Northern Geotechnical Meeting 2016, Reykja-
vik, pp 577-586
Kumar, J. and Rao, V.B.K.M. (2003) Seismic bearing capacity
of foundations on slopes, Geotechnique, 53(3), pp. 347-
361
Lambe. T.W. and Whitman, R.V. (1969), Soil Mechanics, John
Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.
Leshchinsky, B. (2015). Bearing capacity of footings placed
adjacent to c′-ϕ′ slopes. Journal of Geotechnical and Ge-
oenvironmental Engineering, 141(6)
Loukidis, D., Chakraborty, T., and Salgado, R., (2008) Bearing
capacity of strip footings on purely frictional soil under
eccentric and inclined loads, Can. Geotech. J. 45, pp 768–
787
Meyerhof, G. G. (1951) The ultimate bearing capacity of foun-
dations, Géotechnique, 2, pp. 301-332
Meyerhof, G. G. (1953) The bearing capacity of foundations
under eccentric and inclined loads, in Proc. III intl. Conf.
 on Soil Mechanics Found. Eng., Zürich, Switzerland, 1,
pp. 440-445
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957) The ultimate bearing capacity of foun-
dations on slopes, Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, London, August
1957, pp. 384-386.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1963) Some recent research on the bearing
capacity of foundations, Canadian Geotech. J. , 1(1), pp.
16-26
Meyerhof, G. G. (1965) Shallow foundations, Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE, Vol. 91,
No. 2, March/April 1965, pp. 21-32
Michalowski, R. L. (1989). Three-dimensional analysis of lo-
cally loaded slopes. Geotechnique, 39(1), 27-38.
Prandtl, L. (1920) “Über die Härte plastischer Körper.” Nachr.
Ges. Wiss. Goettingen, Math.-Phys. Kl., pp. 74–85.
Shiau, J., Merifield, R., Lyamin, A., and Sloan, S. (2011) Un-
drained stability of footings on slopes. International
Journal of Geomechanics, 11(5), 381-390.
Shields, D., Chandler, N., Garnier, J. (1990) Bearing Capacity
of Foundations in Slopes, Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, Vol 116, No 3, pp. 528-537
Reissner, H. (1924) “Zum Erddruckproblem.” Proc., 1st Int.
Congress for Applied Mechanics, C. B. Biezeno and J. M.
Burgers, eds., Delft, the Netherlands, pp. 295–311.
Terzaghi, K. (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc, New York
Van Baars, S. (2014) The inclination and shape factors for the
bearing capacity of footings, Soils and Foundations,
Vol.54, No.5, October 2014.
Van Baars, S. (2015) The Bearing Capacity of Footings on Co-
hesionless Soils, The Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ISSN 1089-3032, Vol 20
Van Baars, S. (2016a) Failure mechanisms and corresponding
shape factors of shallow foundations, 4th Int. Conf. on
New Development in Soil Mech. and Geotechn. Eng.,
Nicosia, pp. 551-558
Van Baars, S. (2016b) The influence of superposition and ec-
centric loading on the bearing capacity of shallow founda-
tions, Journal of Computations and Materials in Civil
Engineering, Volume 1, No. 3, ISSN 2371-2325, pp. 121-
131
Vesic, A. S. (1973) Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foun-
dations. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 99(1), pp. 45–76.
Vesic, A.S. (1975) Bearing capacity of shallow foundations,
H.F. Winterkorn, H.Y. Fang (Eds.), Foundation Engineer-
ing Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
(1975), pp. 121–147
Yamamoto, K. (2010), Seismic Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations near Slopes using the Upper-Bound Method,
Int. J. Geotechnical Engineering., 4(2), 255-267